Deconstructing the Creative Processes in Design

Deconstructing the Creative Processes in Design Thinking Heidi Weber a,b,c António Cruz Rodriguez a,b Américo Mateus d a

Universidade Europeia, IADE, Av. D. Carlos I, 4, 1200-649 Lisbon, Portugal b UNIDCOM/IADE, Lisbon, Portugal c Vorarlberg University of Applied Sciences, Dornbirn, Austria d

Delli research / HEI-Labs, Lisbon, Portugal

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

ABSTRACT The psychology of creativity is an area of research under intensive study. This article gives an overview of recent findings and describes thought processes and neuropsychological structures that are relevant for creativity. The complexity of creative minds and the intricate interactions of different cognitive procedures are delineated. Further, the connection between the creative thought processes and the stages of Design Thinking is presented. In the last chapter, the role of mindsets in thought processes is explained and ways to modify mindsets are indicated. Keywords: Creativity, Design Thinking, Mindsets, Influence, Psychology

INTRODUCTION Design Thinking has become a well-known and appreciated methodology in western business (e.g. Cajas, 2018; Kizhakkechethipuzha, 2018). However, it has its critics and outright adversaries (e.g. Quackenbush, 2018; Vinsel, 2017). Design Thinking has numerous benefits. At the same time, additional work needs to be done to optimise it. At its core, Design Thinking seeks to foster creativity (Brown, 2008, p. 92). This article uses current findings to show the parallels in creative thought processes and the phases of a Design Thinking project to try to establish a basis for tools that guide participants to better performance through the stages.

THE SCOPE “Design thinking is a problem-solving approach with a unique set of qualities: it is human centred, possibility driven, option focused, and iterative.”(Liedtka, Salzman, & Azer, 2017, p. 6). Design Thinking is a methodology that activates and supports a culture of working and thinking that fosters need-based innovations. It is about creative co-operation in multidimensional teams, which elicits a multitude of meaningful and realistic ideas for solving a problem (Meinel & von Thienen, 2016, p. 310). So, at its core, it is about engaging and sustaining a high level of energy in the people involved in the process (Brown, 2009, p. 21). Research in Positive Psychology – namely creativity – shows that creative people tend to have complex personalities with a multitude of sometimes even opposing ways of acting and thinking (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Beaty, Benedek, Silvia, & Schacter, 2016, p. 93; Csikszentmihalyi, 2013, p. 57). A closer look reveals that they use different thought processes and work attitudes during different tasks within a creative process, if they are well conducted. “While characteristics associated with plasticity and divergence are most relevant when generating ideas, convergence is most important during the stage when ideas are being ironed out and made tenable.” (Kaufman & Gregoire, 2016, p. xxv). On the basis of the definition: “A mindset is a mental attitude. It th

Proceedings of the 5 Design Doctoral Conference, DDC’18: Transgression. IADE - Universidade Europeia, 20 to 22 June 2018

93

Heidi Weber, António Cruz Rodriguez and Américo Mateus

shapes our actions and our thoughts”(Meier & Kropp, 2010, p. 179)1, different mindsets – or mental attitudes – are needed for being creative in different stages of the Design Thinking process. The authors of this article attempt to show in their research the relevant attributes of the mindsets needed for the different stages of Design Thinking and their relationship to the traits of creative people. This article concentrates on the theoretical basis of creativity and gives a short overview of current research findings. It concludes with an indication of how to apply those findings to Design Thinking projects. Subsequently, methods to activate, encourage or sustain these mindsets will have to be determined and evaluated in Design Thinking sessions.

CREATIVITY AND THE BRAIN A straightforward definition of creativity is: “Creativity is the ability to produce original work and ideas.”(Kanematsu & Barry, 2016, p. 9). In art “work is generally considered creative if it is both novel and expressive of something, evoking a reaction (or range of reactions) in observers that the artist intended.” (Amabile, 2018, p. 1) When dealing with creativity outside art, it is often defined in the vein of Amabile and Pratt “…as the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or small group of individuals working together …” (2016, p. 158). A broad group of scientists supports this dualistic approach (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi, 2013, p. 23; Maital, 2014, p. 30; Sternberg, 2011, p. 3). So not only a result’s originality but also its utility is relevant to judge if it is creative. This holds true both inside art (Do I evoke the reaction?) and outside it (Is this something useful, meaningful, appropriate?). As a consequence of the dual criteria-approach we arrive at a theory of creative thought processes that involves just these two steps: spawning ideas and then assessing them (Ellamil, Dobson, Beeman, & Christoff, 2012, p. 1783). Those two thought processes are typically seen as oppositional – one needing divergent and the other convergent thinking as coined by J.P. Guilford in the early days of creativity research (1957, pp. 110– 118). This theory is still in high esteem, with divergence supplemented by plasticity in recent studies (Fürst, Ghisletta, & Lubart, 2016, p. 99). Quite a popular model is to assign those opposite thought processes to the opposite hemispheres of the brain: Divergent, intuitive, holistic thinking to the right hemisphere; convergent, analytical, detailed thinking to the left hemisphere. This theory has been proven false by neuropsychology but is still often communicated and taught (e.g. Meir, 2018, p. 25). Not only the notion of two hemispheres but also the idea that there are only two thought processes needed for creativity are currently being supplanted by theories that support complex systems of processes, skills and attitudes: “…creativity relevant processes […] include cognitive styles, perceptual styles, and thinking skills that are conducive to taking new perspectives on problems, pivoting among different ideas, thinking broadly, and making unusual associations; personality processes, traits, and characteristics that lead the individual to take risks and eschew conformity; and persistent, energetic work styles.” (Amabile & Pratt, 2016, p. 106) All these styles and skills activate different brain regions depending on the phase of the creative project. Most interesting is the fact that different brain regions cooperate to fulfil the task at hand (Kaufman, 2013). The systems are highly complex and specialised. Studies indicate that “…creative thinking recruits an optimized, unique configuration of neural processes typically not used together in ‘regular” thinking” (Ellamil et al., 2012, p. 1793). Research in Neuroscience identified several networks that are suggested to be particularly relevant for creative efforts (Beaty, Benedek, et al., 2016, p. 93). Specific thought functions are carried out through so-called large-scale brain networks. These networks are regions spread throughout the brain that are functionally or structurally connected and that interact with each other to fulfil a specialised task (Bressler & Menon, 2010, p. 278; Zabelina & Andrews-Hanna, 2016, p. 76). Three large networks are suggested to be primarily responsible for creative processes: The Executive Attention Network, the Salience Network and the Default Mode or Imagination Network (Beaty & Jung, 2018, p. 276; Kaufman, 2013). As seen in Figure 1 all three networks use brain areas in various locations of the brain.

1

The currently prevalent definition of Carol Dweck (2006), distinguishing only between fixed and growth mindset is comprised in this definition as a mental attitude towards one’s ability to grow (Bosman & Fernhaber, 2018, p. 8)

94

th


Deconstructing the Creative Processes in Design Thinking

Figure 1: Green: Executive Attention Network, Yellow: Salience Network, Red: Default Mode Network (Kaufman, 2013)

The Executive Attention Network or Frontoparietal Control Network is activated when intensive attention on an external task is needed, when the focus on a goal must be maintained, but also when information must be actively recalled (Kenett et al., 2018, p. 3; Zabelina & Andrews-Hanna, 2016, p. 88). The Salience Network works as a moderator between different network activities. It switches the attention of the brain as is needed for the specific task. Most pertinent for creative needs is the fact that it switches between external and internal attention and is likely to be influenced by emotion and perception (Kolb & Whishaw, 2015, p. 431; Zabelina & Andrews-Hanna, 2016, p. 88). Very interesting for creative work is the Default Mode Network. This network is active when a person is idle and is not actively involved in an external or internal task. Ideally, the person is daydreaming and free of stimulation (Buckner, 2012, pp. 1139–1140). Notably, Roger E. Beaty researched the Default Mode Network and its role in creativity with diverse teams (2014; 2016; 2015). The Default Mode Network is sometimes called Imagination Network (Kaufman, 2013) because of its importance for mind wandering, future thinking and mental simulation (Beaty & Jung, 2018, p. 276). The Default Mode Network has a core role in “executing complex search processes, inhibiting task-irrelevant information, and selecting ideas among a large set of competing alternatives” (Beaty et al., 2014, p. 96). In cooperation with the Executive Attention Network, thought processes can be modified as needed for idea creation. So the networks help to switch from already given concrete solutions to a problem to strategies that use semantic structures to create novel ideas (Beaty et al., 2015, p. 10). A recent study has shown high evidence that the Default Network often provides content the Executive Network then shapes and evaluates to fit real-world demands (Kenett et al., 2018, p. 276). The Salience Network acts as an assessor shifting focus between more internal or more external thought processes (Uddin, 2016, p. 15). Why is this information relevant to research in Design Thinking? “The key to understanding the neuroscience of creativity lies not only in knowledge of large-scale networks, but in recognizing that different patterns of neural activations and deactivations are important at different stages of the creative process. Sometimes, it's helpful for the networks to work with each other, and sometimes such cooperation can impede the creative process.” (Kaufman, 2013) For example, as research shows, highly creative people are likely able to masking prominent (already long established) ideas to focus on finding original solutions (Kenett et al., 2018, p. 281). So the mindset of Design Thinkers should be guided to emulate precisely this mechanism and to shun first ideas in order to concentrate on new ones. To know about the detailed processes in creative thinking and matching them to the tasks in Design Thinking may help to optimise its methods and guiding rules.

DESIGN THINKING The goal of this chapter is to give a first impression of how recent findings in creativity concerning different thought processes and the activities in Design Thinking interrelate. Please note that the phases of the design thinking process are named quite differently in the various models. This paper follows Curedale’s mapping throughout the phases (Curedale, 2016, pp. 126–127) wherever appropriate and uses d.school naming conventh


95


tions (Lewrick, Link, & Leifer, 2018, p. 38) for the generic terms. Because of its accessibility we start with the role of divergent and convergent thinking in creative thinking. Most Design Thinking methodologies clearly indicate which phases are supposed to be more divergent and which are more convergent. As a rule, divergent thinking is part of the generation process, while convergent thinking is needed for the selection process (Fürst et al., 2016, p. 99). Very often the visualisation of the model itself reflects the underlying concept of its creators (see Error! Reference source not found. to Error! Reference source not found.)

Figure 2: The IDEAS(R)EVOLUTION model of Américo Mateus (Mateus, 2016, p. 288)

Figure 3: The Necktie Model of Stanford d.school (Winograd, 2009)

Figure 4: The 4 What Model of Jeanne Liedtka (Liedtka et al., 2017, p. 208)

Figure 5: Design Thinking process as seen by SAP (SAP SE, 2017)

Not only the illustrations but also the descriptions of the tasks indicate when divergence or convergence respectively is demanded. Tim Brown stresses the rhythmic transition between the two processes, with each round narrowing down to a novel solution for the problem (2009, p. 68). Liedtka and Ogilvie explain how each of the four “What” questions needs a phase each of divergent and convergent thinking (2011, p. 21). Kelley and Kelley show how Design Thinkers do not go for the first idea but expand to many possibilities before filtering 96

th



down (2015, p. 29). Still, it is evident that the different divergent phases do not require the same way of thinking. While the ‘Understand’ or ‘Discovery’ phase demands openness to the environment and willingness to explore (Curedale, 2016, p. 168), the ideation phase needs introspect engagement, imagination, and the willingness to generate as many ideas as possible (Curedale, 2016, p. 444). Psychology differs here in plasticity and divergence, with plasticity being responsible for openness and extraversion (Karwowski & Lebuda, 2015, p. 4). “With plasticity comes enhanced cognitive and behavioural engagement and exploration and, frequently, a commitment to personal growth” (Kaufman & Gregoire, 2016, p. 85). Openness and imagination are variants of divergent thinking. The former is focused on external data and supposedly takes place in the Executive Network, while the latter is focused on internal processes and is believed to take place in the Default Mode Network, both being modulated by the Salience Network (Beaty et al., 2018, p. 2, 2015, p. 9; Jung, Mead, Carrasco, & Flores, 2013, p. 10). ‘Empathic’ and ‘withdrawn’ are two other traits that are required in Design Thinking, and that seems to be contradictive. Still, both are needed. Empathy is not only relevant for the ‘Understand’ phase but also to find a good ‘Point of View’ and to ‘Evaluate’. The Design Goal of the Step ‘Establish Design Criteria’ of the 4WMethod (matches with ‘Point of View’) is to identify the needs of the stakeholder, thus requiring empathy (Liedkta, Ogilvie, & Brozenske, 2014, p. 21). The Madlib method of the d.school demands an even deeper connection “[USER] needs to [USER’S NEED] because [SURPRISING INSIGHT]” (Both & Baggereor, n.d., p. 21) as this surprising insight needs serious thought about the user. Testing also needs empathy: “The purpose of testing is to understand needs better and to build up empathy.” (Lewrick et al., 2018, p. 123). On the other hand, many Design Thinking authors stress the importance of creative environments that allow seclusion and tailored collection of the information (Brown, 2009, p. 35; Lewrick et al., 2018, p. 132). Some phases need team members that are totally focussed on the information at hand. Take prototyping, for example: “But a prototype is just an embodiment of your idea.” (D. Kelley & Kelley, 2015, p. 130). Another case in point is ideation, which needs focussed minds that work “with a well-honed statement of the problem” (T. Kelley & Littmann, 2016, p. 56). A particular category of essential variants of thought are deliberate and spontaneous thoughts. Creative people are found to be capable of altering between conscious and intuitive thought processes not only in generative but also in evaluative phases of a creative endeavour (Ellamil et al., 2012, pp. 1791–1792). Studies even suggest that highly creative people can activate their Executive Attention Network (à deliberate thinking) and the Default Mode Network (à daydreaming, imagination) simultaneously (Beaty et al., 2014, p. 5). It is evident that spontaneous thinking alone does not lead to good solutions, because first ideas are rarely innovative or useful due to their spontaneous nature. Accordingly, creative thinkers must be able to switch their attention to more complex thoughts (Beaty et al., 2014, p. 5). The authors have to date identified five pairs of attributions that are vital to creative thought processes and that vary through the phases of Design Thinking as seen in Figure 6.

Collecting

Analytical

Observant

Envisioning/Imagining

Developing

Judgmental/Selective

Empathic Spontaneous

Withdrawn / Introverted Reflective

Figure 6: Contradictive attributes derived from creativity research

MINDSETS “A mindset is a mental attitude. It shapes your actions and our thoughts, as well as how you perceive and respond to events.” (Meier & Kropp, 2010, p. 179). More precisely, Gollwitzer describes a mindset as “a set of activated cognitive procedures “ (Gollwitzer, 2011, p. 1). These procedures help to tackle a challenge by guiding thoughts and behaviours, for example by altering the visual attention (Büttner et al., 2014, p. 1248) “mindsets form the core of meaning systems, attracting goals and beliefs (attributions, effort beliefs) that work in concert to produce outcomes across important realms: school, work, sports, relationships, and health.” (Dweck & Molden, 2018, p. 150). Mindsets can be affected by diverse methods. Current research shows interesting examples: Motivating people towards different goals can change their attitude, and with that, the way they perform. (Browman, Destin, & Molden, 2017, p. 838) “… people can be ‘triggered’ into adopting different mindsets in different situations.”(Dweck & Molden, 2018, p. 136). Recent research suggests that personal, interpersonal and organith


97


sational ambience effects mindsets. Role models in particular can be influential (Zheng, Kark, & Meister, 2018, p. 6,9). These findings encourage the authors to think that mindsets can be influenced through various methods. Ideally, thought processes during different phases of a Design Thinking project can therefore be guided in a beneficial direction. Namely activation games, storytelling and the introduction of role models for specific tasks look promising in having the desired effect.

CONCLUSION The thesis of author 1 of this paper deepens the above-outlined research and tries to implement the findings in the form of modified tasks, introductory games, storytelling or role models into Design Thinking projects to optimise the creative outcomes. That there is a high potential can be seen by the small example given by IDEO. To start an ideation process with a question starting – in precisely these words – with “How might we…” has provided high impact in the way team members engage in the process and open to novel approaches. (Fessler, 2017)

REFERENCES Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity (New Ed). Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. Amabile, T. M. (2018). Creativity and the Labor of Love. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Human Creativity (1st ed., pp. 1–16). Cambridge University Press. Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The Dynamic Componential Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations: Making Progress, Making Meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=51996 Arnold, J. E., & Clancey, W. J. (2016). Creative Engineering: Promoting Innovation by Thinking Differently, John E. Arnold, William J. Clancey, eBook - Amazon.com. Stanford Digital Repository. Retrieved from https://purl.stanford.edu/jb100vs5745 Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Kaufman, S. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2015). Default and Executive Network Coupling Supports Creative Idea Production. Scientific Reports, 5, 10964. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10964 Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Creative Cognition and Brain Network Dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004 Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Wilkins, R. W., Jauk, E., Fink, A., Silvia, P. J., … Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Creativity and the default network: A functional connectivity analysis of the creative brain at rest. Neuropsychologia, 64, 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.019 Beaty, R. E., & Jung, R. E. (2018). Interacting Brain Networks Underlying Creative Cognition and Artistic Performance. In K. C. R. Fox & K. Christoff (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Spontaneous Thought (pp. 275– 285). Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190464745.001.0001/oxfordhb9780190464745-e-10 Accepted Manuscript Beaty, R. E., Kaufman, S. B., Benedek, M., Jung, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Jauk, E., … Silvia, P. J. (2016). Personality and complex brain networks: The role of openness to experience in default network efficiency. Human Brain Mapping, 37(2), 773–779. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23065 Beaty, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Christensen, A. P., Rosenberg, M. D., Benedek, M., Chen, Q., … Silvia, P. J. (2018). Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201713532. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713532115 Bosman, L., & Fernhaber, S. (2018). Defining the Entrepreneurial Mindset. In Teaching the Entrepreneurial Mindset to Engineers (pp. 7–14). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61412-0_2 Both, T., & Baggereor, D. (n.d.). Design Thinking Bootleg — Stanford d.school. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/the-bootcamp-bootleg Bressler, S. L., & Menon, V. (2010). Large-scale brain networks in cognition: emerging methods and principles. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.04.004 Browman, A. S., Destin, M., & Molden, D. C. (2017). Identity-specific motivation: How distinct identities direct self-regulation across distinct situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(6), 835–857. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000095 Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsh&AN=32108052&lang=de&site=ehostlive&scope=site Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. 98

th



New York: HarperBusiness. Buckner, R. L. (2012). The serendipitous discovery of the brain’s default network. NeuroImage, 62(2), 1137– 1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.035 Büttner, O. B., Wieber, F., Schulz, A. M., Bayer, U. C., Florack, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2014). Visual Attention and Goal Pursuit: Deliberative and Implemental Mindsets Affect Breadth of Attention. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(10), 1248–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214539707 Cajas, I. (2018, September 4). Unlocking your team’s capacity with Design Thinking | EU-Startups. Retrieved May 7, 2018, from http://www.eu-startups.com/2018/04/unlocking-your-teams-capacity-with-designthinking/ Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention (Reprint). New York: Harper Perennial. Curedale, R. (2016). Design Thinking Process and Methods 3rd Edition (3rd ed.). Design Community College Inc. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Rep Upd). Random House. Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2018). Mindset - The impact on Competence Motivation and Acquisition. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation, Second Edition (00002 ed., pp. 135–154). New York: Guilford Pubn. Ellamil, M., Dobson, C., Beeman, M., & Christoff, K. (2012). Evaluative and generative modes of thought during the creative process. NeuroImage, 59(2), 1783–1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.008 Fessler, L. (2017, July 10). The three words that make brainstorming sessions at Google, Facebook, and IDEO more productive. Retrieved August 2, 2017, from https://qz.com/1022054/the-secret-to-betterbrainstorming-sessions-lies-in-the-phrase-how-might-we/ Fürst, G. F., Ghisletta, P., & Lubart, T. (2016). Toward an Integrative Model of Creativity and Personality: Theoretical Suggestions and Preliminary Empirical Testing. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(2), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.71 Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Mindset Theory of Action Phases. In P. A. M. V. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume One (New., pp. 526–546). Los Angeles: Sage Social Psychology Program. Guilford, J. P. (1957). Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological Review, 64(2), 110–118. Retrieved from https://insights.ovid.com/psychological-review/plrev/1957/03/000/creative-abilities-arts/6/00006832 Jung, R. E., Mead, B. S., Carrasco, J., & Flores, R. A. (2013). The structure of creative cognition in the human brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00330 Kanematsu, H., & Barry, D. M. (2016). Theory of Creativity. In STEM and ICT education in intelligent environments (pp. 9–13). Springer. Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2015). The Big Five, the Huge Two, and Creative Self-Beliefs: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 10(2). Kaufman, S. B. (2013, August 19). The Real Neuroscience of Creativity. Retrieved May 2, 2018, from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-real-neuroscience-of-creativity/ Kaufman, S. B., & Gregoire, C. (2016). Wired to Create: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Creative Mind. NewYork: TarcherPerigee. Kelley, D., & Kelley, T. (2015). Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within Us All. London: Harpercollins Publishers. Kelley, T., & Littmann, J. (2016). The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from Ideo, America’s Leading Design Firm: Success Through Innovation the IDEO Way (New Ed). London: Profile Books Ltd. Kenett, Y. N., Medaglia, J. D., Beaty, R. E., Chen, Q., Betzel, R. F., Thompson-Schill, S. L., & Qiu, J. (2018). Driving the brain towards creativity and intelligence: A network control theory analysis. Neuropsychologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.01.001 Kizhakkechethipuzha, G. (2018, April 16). Want To Succeed In E-Commerce? Use Design Thinking [Blog]. Retrieved May 7, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/04/16/want-tosucceed-in-e-commerce-use-design-thinking/#6c245d8e5573 Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (2015). Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology (1st ed. 2015). New York: Worth. Lewrick, M., Link, P., & Leifer, L. (2018). The Design Thinking Playbook: Mindful Digital Transformation of Teams, Products, Services, Businesses and Ecosystems (1.). Hoboken: Wiley. Liedkta, J., Ogilvie, T., & Brozenske, R. (2014). The designing for growth field book: a step-by-step project guide. New York: Columbia Business School Publishing. Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Tool Kit for Managers. New York: Columbia Univers. Press. Liedtka, J., Salzman, R., & Azer, D. (2017). Design thinking for the greater good: innovation in the social sector. New York: Columbia University Press. Maital, S. (2014). Creativity in Action. In A. Ruttenberg & S. Maital (Eds.), Cracking the Creativity Code: Zoom th


99


in/Zoom out/Zoom in. Framework for Creativity, Fun, and Success (pp. 30–59). Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd. Mateus, A. (2016). Product / Brand co-creation methodology crossing Marketing, Design Thinking, Creativity and Management: IDEAS(R)EVOLUTION (Doctoral Thesis). Universidade de Èvora. Meier, J. D., & Kropp, M. (2010). Getting Results the Agile Way: A Personal Results System for Work and Life. Bellevue, WA: Innovation Playhouse. Meinel, C., & von Thienen, J. (2016). Design Thinking. Informatik-Spektrum, 39, 310–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00287-016-0977-2 Meir, D. (2018). Workflow: A Practical Guide to the Creative Process. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Quackenbush, C. (2018, March 7). Do We Need to Rethink the Meaning of Design Thinking? Retrieved May 8, 2018, from http://fortune.com/2018/03/07/what-is-design-thinking/ SAP SE. (2017). Design Thinking. Retrieved May 12, 2018, from https://eaexplorer.hana.ondemand.com/_item.html?id=10649#!/overview Sternberg, R. J. (2011). Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Uddin, L. Q. (2016). Salience Network of the Human Brain. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press. Vinsel, L. (2017, December 6). Design Thinking is Kind of Like Syphilis — It’s Contagious and Rots Your Brains. Retrieved December 16, 2017, from https://medium.com/@sts_news/design-thinking-is-kind-of-likesyphilis-its-contagious-and-rots-your-brains-842ed078af29 Winograd, T. (2009, September 5). Design process diagrams. Retrieved May 12, 2018, from http://hci.stanford.edu/dschool/resources/design-process/gallery.html Zabelina, D. L., & Andrews-Hanna, J. R. (2016). Dynamic network interactions supporting internally-oriented cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 40, 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2016.06.014 Zheng, W., Kark, R., & Meister, A. L. (2018). Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. The Leadership Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001

100

th
